Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I am indeed somewhat familiar with the classroom cliche.I'm pretty sure you know the geological movement of plate tectonics that built up the Tibetan mountains.
That is not what that statement I posed stated. And if we know of 1 thing in recent history that has made c-14 unreliable. How many other things have made it unreliable?Atomic tests (not reactors) do affect C-14 dating, but not other radiometric dating techniques. (This is because C-14 is made in the atmosphere by irradiation.)
The error bars (which are part of *any* measurement*) limit the accuracy of the age for things that are that young regardless of the nuclear weapons tests.
C-14 dating uses calibration to translate measured dates into actual dates to compensate for known variations in the natural (and artificial) C-14 abundance in the atmosphere. The actual C-14 abundances in the atmosphere during recent years is well known and will provide a good baseline for future C-14 dating measurements.
That is not what that statement I posed stated. And if we know of 1 thing in recent history that has made c-14 unreliable. How many other things have made it unreliable?
I’ve seen trees. I’ve planted trees. I’ve watched the progression of their growth.Have you ever observed a tree? I anticipate your probable answer is yes. If so, what do you mean by "observe", in respect of observing a tree.
I’m using “see” in the way we use it in conversation.Yes, but what do you mean by "see"? What are the specific elements of the action? What is it that enables you to conclude you are "seeing" a tree?
So, a vague, colloquial sense. Fair neough, however it's not a sound basis for a technical conversation and a technical conversation is necessary if you wish your rejection of "observation of the past" to be taken seriously. Thank you for your time.I’m using “see” in the way we use it in conversation.
I don’t have an argument that needs to be won. I have a truth that needs to be proclaimed.So, a vague, colloquial sense. Fair neough, however it's not a sound basis for a technical conversation and a technical conversation is necessary if you wish your rejection of "observation of the past" to be taken seriously. Thank you for your time.
Maybe this will help. There’s nothing that exists that is millions of years old. Hence, nothing that old could ever be observed.This makes no sense to me.
This is confusing to me because here in the Pacific Northwest where I'm able to explore there is a LOT of geology that is many millions of years old. Like, how else can things like the movement of the Yellowstone Hot Spot from Oregon to it's present location be explained other than a multi-million year ongoing event? Or the over hundred layers of the Columbia River Basalt Group that reaches from Idaho to the Pacific Ocean 300 miles away?Maybe this will help. There’s nothing that exists that is millions of years old. Hence, nothing that old could ever be observed.
Maybe this will help. There’s nothing that exists that is millions of years old. Hence, nothing that old could ever be observed.
It’s not millions of years old.This is confusing to me because here in the Pacific Northwest where I'm able to explore there is a LOT of geology that is many millions of years old. Like, how else can things like the movement of the Yellowstone Hot Spot from Oregon to it's present location be explained other than a multi-million year ongoing event? Or the over hundred layers of the Columbia River Basalt Group that reaches from Idaho to the Pacific Ocean 300 miles away?
Columbia River Basalt Group Stretches from Oregon to Idaho | U.S. Geological Survey
Rocks are usually hard, in my experience.All you need to do is find the nearest rock-cut for a road and you'll have some million+ year old rock. It's not that hard.
It’s not millions of years old.
And it’s a lie.It's right there in the link 5.5 to 16.7 million year old basaltic lava flows.
You see the light that is reflected off of a tree. Just like a camera. Dark colors are absorbed and light colors are reflected. There are two theorys, the additive and the subtractive. I worked on the lighting for the Ballet company when I was in college so I know about the physics of light.Yes, but what do you mean by "see"? What are the specific elements of the action? What is it that enables you to conclude you are "seeing" a tree?
And it’s a lie.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?